Latest 6 Cases: State v. Barber (Civil Rights), State v. Queen (Civil Rights), State v. Cheeks (Criminal Law)

The Dreadful Failure of Lethal Injection

AUSTIN SARAT

Austin Sarat—Associate Provost and Associate Dean of the Faculty and Professor of Jurisprudence & Political Science at Amherst College—comments on the decomposition of the legal injection paradigm over the past few decades, since it was first adopted in Oklahoma in 1999. Professor Sarat observes the evolution of the procedure over time and points out that none of the changes has resolved lethal injection’s fate or repaired its vexing problems.

Read More

Let’s Talk About Sex, Baby: State Representative Ana-Maria Ramos Introduces Bill to Repeal Parental Consent Requirement for Birth Control

JOANNA L. GROSSMAN

SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman comments on a Texas bill that would allow teens to access birth control without parental involvement. Professor Grossman describes the current state of reproductive health laws and policies in Texas and explains why the proposed bill is so important.

Read More

State v. Barber

Docket: 121720

Opinion Date: March 19, 2021

Judge: Stegall

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court denying Defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea to first-degree murder, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it found that Defendant failed to establish good cause and denied his motion to withdraw plea. In his motion to withdraw his plea, Defendant argued that his counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate a voluntary intoxication theory of defense because Defendant had told counsel that he was on antidepressants at the time of the murder. The trial court denied the motion, finding counsel's investigation of Defendant's medication legally sufficient to support a finding of competent representation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion.

State v. Queen

Docket: 120643

Opinion Date: March 19, 2021

Judge: Marla J. Luckert

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals holding that no exceptions extended the statutory speedy trial period in this case and that Defendant must be discharged from liability on the charges against him, holding that the State violated Defendant's statutory speedy trial rights. Defendant was charged with premeditated first-degree murder and two counts of attempted first-degree murder. The State did not bring Defendant to trial until 153 days after his arraignment. After he was convicted, Defendant appealed, arguing that the State violated his statutory right to a speedy trial. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed Defendant's convictions, holding that, under Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3402(a), Defendant's right to a speedy trial was violated.

State v. Cheeks

Docket: 122621

Opinion Date: March 19, 2021

Judge: Wall

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court denying Defendant's motion for postconviction DNA testing, holding that the district court did not err. In 1993, Defendant was convicted of the second-degree murder of his wife. In 2009, Defendant filed a motion seeking postconviction DNA testing pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-2512, which authorizes individuals who have been convicted of first-degree murder or rape to petition for such testing. The district court denied the motion because Defendant was convicted of neither offense. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded in Cheeks I, concluding that Defendant's exclusion from section 21-2512 violated his equal protection rights. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court decided State v. LaPointe, 434 P.3d 850 (2019), which overruled Cheeks I. Relying on LaPointe, the district court against denied Defendant's motion for postconviction testing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that LaPointe is binding precedent and overrules Cheeks I.

State v. Dunn

Docket: 119866

Opinion Date: March 19, 2021

Judge: Wilson

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the decision of a panel of the court of appeals vacating Defendant's sentence of seventy-eight months' imprisonment and addressing and determining the three additional issues raised by the parties on appeal, holding that the holding of the panel on two issues was merely advisory. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in imposing lifetime postrelease supervision and lifetime electronic monitoring and erred in failing to grant him good time credit. For the first time on appeal, the State argued that the district court imposed an illegal sentence by departing more than fifty percent from a standard guideline sentence. The panel concluded that the district court illegally sentenced Defendant to only seventy-eight months and then determined the other issues raised on appeal. The Supreme Court held (1) the panel correctly determined that the seventy-eight-month sentence imposed was illegal; and (2) because any further consideration on the merits could result in holds merely advisory, the panel's holdings on the two remaining issues on review is vacated.

State v. Tonge

Docket: 119543

Opinion Date: March 19, 2021

Judge: Standridge

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the court of appeals vacating Defendant's sentence and remanding the case to the district court for resentencing, holding that the court of appeals panel lacked the requisite authority to reform the plea agreement after finding the sentence imposed was illegal. Defendant entered into a plea agreement with the State in which Defendant agreed to plea no contest to aggravated robbery. The district court imposed a 180-month prison sentence as the State recommended. Defendant appealed his sentence, claiming for the first time on appeal that the district court erred by scoring his two pre-1993 Kansas burglaries convictions as person felonies for purposes of calculating his criminal history score. The panel agreed and sua sponte nullified the sentencing recommendation portion of the plea agreement. The court then held that the parties were free on remand to argue for a correct presumptive sentence. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the court of appeals exceeded the scope of its authority when it reformed the parties' plea agreement as part of its remand order.

In re F.C.

Docket: 121536

Opinion Date: March 19, 2021

Judge: Wilson

Areas of Law: Family Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the adjudication decision of the district court finding F.C. to be a child in need of care (CINC) under Kan. Stat. Ann. 38-2202(d)(2), which focuses on whether the child lacks necessary care or control, and Kan. Stat. Ann. 38-2202(d)(3), which focuses on whether the child has been abused or neglected, holding that the State proved F.C. was a CINC. On appeal, the court of appeals held that there was insufficient evidence that F.C.'s mother or stepfather inflicted emotional harm and that the State failed to establish that F.C. had been emotionally abused under section 38-2202. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) section 38-2202(d)(2) limits the trial court's focus only to the present circumstances at the time of the adjudication hearing; and (2) there was clear and convincing evidence to show that F.C. had been subjected to emotional abuse by her stepfather, as that term is defined under subsection (d)(3).